Subscribe To

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S.
Bernanke said he wants to end investor perceptions that the largest U.S.
financial institutions will be given taxpayer bailouts to prevent a collapse.

Well, he at least wants to end investor “perceptions” about
bailouts.Not necessarily end the
bailouts, just the perception of the bailouts.

“As somebody who’s spent a lot of
late nights trying to deal with these problems and the crisis, I would very
much like to have the confidence that we could close down a large institution
without causing damage to the rest of the economy.”

I guess he wants to have the “confidence” that he “could”
close down a large institution.He isn’t
saying he would, just that he could…and be confident about it.

[Senator Elizabeth] Warren cited a
Bloomberg View article estimating that the largest U.S. banks receive an
implicit taxpayer subsidy amounting to $83 billion a year because their funding
costs are lowered by the perception they won’t be allowed to fail.

“I think we should get rid of it,”
Bernanke said.

But to get rid of it would require getting rid of central
banking.What gives, Ben?

“Over time you’ll see increasing
market expectations that these institutions can fail,” [Bernanke] said.

Forget “market expectations,” what about market reality?

“The benefits of being large are
going to decline over time, which means some banks are going to voluntarily
begin to reduce their size.”

Friday, February 22, 2013

For longtime readers, this is a condensed version of the
several posts I have made on this subject.I have also added a minor amount of new material.

Examples of decentralized society in history are often hidden.They are hidden because those in
decentralized societies never bothered to keep records.They are also hidden for the purposes of the
current state.I have previously written
about anarchy
in the Southeast Asian Highlands as one example.Here, I will present the time of the Middle
Ages as another.

This time offered a system of private law.A law not based on the edicts of the king, but
based on local tradition and culture.The
king was not above the law, but equally subject to it.For law to be law, it must be both old and
good.Each lord had a veto power over
the king and over each other law (I will use the term “lord” for those landed
free men.Even the serfs could not be denied
their right without adjudication.Land
was not held as a favor from the king; title was allodial.A man’s home truly was his castle.

Although the term has fallen out of use in the academic
community, for many this period is known as the Dark Ages – with all of the associated
stereotypes: barbarians, boorish behavior, and the uncivilized society that
came to Europe with the fall of the much more civilized Rome.

The Dark Ages is a historical
period used for the first part of the Middle Ages. The term emphasizes the
cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Europe
following the decline of the Roman Empire. The label employs traditional
light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the "darkness" of the
period with earlier and later periods of "light".

The (Not So) Dark Ages

How
did people live absent a strong central power (Rome)?In what manners was governance achieved?How did such a society evolve over the centuries
into the nation-states of Europe?From
whose perspective were these ages “dark”?

Hans-Hermann
Hoppe, in his essay entitled “On the Impossibility of
Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution,” makes
reference to certain aspects of this time period in history:

Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the
requirements of a state; they could only "tax" with the consent of
the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate
decision maker) as the feudal king was on his.

Tax payments
were voluntary.On his land, each free
man was as sovereign as the king.This
doesn’t seem so “dark.”

Hoppe
quotes Robert Nisbet:

The subordination of king to law was one of the most
important of principles under feudalism.

The
king was below the law.This might be
one factor as to why the time period is kept “dark.”

Hoppe
references a book by Fritz Kern, “Kingship and Law in the Middle
Ages.”The book was originally written in German in
1914, and is a thorough and eye-opening examination of the relationship of king
and lord during this time period, as well as the relationship of both king and lord
to the law.I will rely upon, and will
quote extensively, from this book throughout this essay.Except as noted, all quoted items will be
from this book.

During
the early Middle Ages, there was no concept of a Divine Right of Kings, nor did
the earlier period hold to the idea of kingship by birthright.These ideas developed over the centuries and
only took shape in the late Middle Ages.Contrary to these, in the early Middle Ages…

…an act of popular will was an essential element in the
foundation of government….

To
become king required consent of those doing the choosing.Additionally, the king did not hold absolute
power:

…even the rudiments of an absolutist doctrine had scarcely
appeared.

Both
the king and the people were subservient to the law – and not an arbitrary law,
but a law based on custom, “the laws of one’s fathers.”

All well-founded private rights were protected from
arbitrary change….

Germanic and ecclesiastical opinion were firmly agreed on
the principle, which met with no opposition until the age of Machiavelli, that
the State exists for the realization of the Law; the power of the State is the
means, the Law is the end-in-itself; the monarch is dependent on the Law, which
is superior to him, and upon which his own existence is based.

The
king and the people were not bound to each other, but each was bound to the
Law, giving all parties responsibility to see that the integrity of the Law is
maintained.A breech by one imposed an
obligation on the other to correct the breech.The relationship of each party (king and lord) was to the Law, not to
the other party, and each had duty to protect it.

Contrast
this to the situation today: whereas today it is an illegal act for the people
to resist the government authority, during this period after the fall of Rome
the lords had a duty to resist the king who overstepped his authority.This is not to say that such challenges went
unopposed by the king –physical enforcement by the lords was occasionally
required – however, the act of resistance in and of itself was not considered
illegal.It was a duty respected by king
and people alike.

Complaints under the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted to any
approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below. Each
provider follows the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as
well as its own supplemental rules.

There are four listed
dispute-resolution service providers, one of which is WIPO –
the provider housed within the UN.This
is counter to what I had previously written:

ICANN has chosen WIPO to adjudicate
such disputes.

There is something else from the above-mentioned LRC post:

Because the RP.com guys registered
Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

In my quick review of the four providers, one seems to be US-based,
one in Europe, and one in Asia.The fourth
is WIPO.

Still, this leaves some room for conflict with the language
at the ICANN site, which states that claims may be submitted to any provider on
the list.Is it possible that the
language at the ICANN site is a general statement, with many devils in the many
details?After all, lawyers and
regulators rarely write so clearly and succinctly. Is it possible that it is
ICANN and not the claimant that selects the provider, based on factors of the
specific claim?As indicated at LRC,
could geography determine?The statement
could be read this way:

Complaints under the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by
ICANN] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider
listed below.

Or this way:

Complaints under the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by
Claimant] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider
listed below.

I have no idea, but this could explain and therefore
eliminate the seeming conflict.It would
take someone familiar with such proceedings to clarify this language.That isn’t me.

As I have mentioned before and will do so again: I have no
opinion one way or another about which party will prevail in this issue, nor
does it make any difference to me.I
know little about the details of the dispute, and virtually nothing about the
law.I have no desire to get in Ron Paul’s
head and figure out why he did this.My
intent has been to answer and remains in answering the following:

1)What is the process?

2)Is there some violation of libertarian principle
/ NAP in Ron Paul’s action?

I am working on a follow-up post.In this upcoming post, I will summarize some
of the discussion that my earlier post generated, including further developing
some of my replies.I will also address
some statements made in a Huffington Post article on this subject.Finally, I will further develop my views
regarding UN involvement in this matter.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

This is a revised and extended version of my earlier post in
this subject.I now have a better (call
it an “educated layman’s”) understanding of the required procedures to resolve
such disputes and have incorporate these into this post.

I don’t believe this subject needs introduction, however
this is posted at the site in question, ronpaul.com:

Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an
international UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a
global governing body that is an agency of the United
Nations. The complaint calls on the agency to expropriate the two domain
names from his supporters without compensation
and hand them over to Ron Paul.

My immediate reaction to this was…unsettled: United Nations,
expropriate the property of the current owners, without compensation….

Ron Paul has earned enough goodwill with me to last nine
lifetimes – unless he joins the Fed Board of Governors or the Board of
Directors of one of the merchants of death, I am not sure he can spend even a
few drops of the goodwill I have toward him.I do not worship him as perfect; I just respect the significance of what
he has accomplished over his lifetime.

But even with this, the action by Dr. Paul initially didn’t
sit well.

I do not have specialized knowledge about the procedures and
processes involved in this process.So
it would seem helpful to first understand a few basics:

The UDRP (Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy) is the original domain name
dispute policy. It was adopted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers) on August 26, 1999. The UDRP applies to domain
names ending in the following extensions: .biz, .cat, .cc, .com, .info, .mobi,
.net, .org, .ro, .tel, .travel, .tv, .web, .ws

This Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), is incorporated by reference into your
Registration Agreement, and sets forth the terms and conditions
in connection with a dispute between you and any party other than us (the
registrar) over the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered
by you.

It is the registrant (current
registrant of ronpaul.com) that has agreed to this process.The claimant (Ron Paul) is following the process that the registrant accepted
at the time of registration.

What representations are made
by the registration applicant?

By applying to register a domain
name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you
hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in
your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the
domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third
party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an
unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in
violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to
determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone
else's rights.

The Policy goes on to outline the circumstances under which
a change or transfer to a domain name will be effected and the requirement of
submission to a Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.Even though submitting to an administrative proceeding
is mandatory, this does not preclude the possibility of additionally submitting
to court proceedings.

The mandatory administrative
proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you
or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent
jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative
proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.

One
of ICANN's first steps was to commission the United Nations World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) to produce a report on the
conflict between trademarks and domain names. Published on 30 April 1999, the
WIPO Report[4] recommended the establishment
of a "mandatory administrative procedure concerning abusive
registrations", which would allow for a "neutral
venue in the context of disputes that are often international in nature."
The procedure was not intended to deal with cases with competing rights, nor
would it exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. It would, however, be mandatory in the sense that "each domain
name application would, in the domain name agreement, be required to submit to
the procedure if a claim was initiated against it by a third party[5]

Following adoption by ICANN, the
UDRP was launched on 1 December 1999, and the
first case determined under it by WIPO was World Wrestling
Federation Entertainment, Inc v. Michael Bosman, involving the domain name
worldwrestlingfederation.com[6]

It was ICANN that introduced
the UN into the process, or more accurately an arbitration
service (WIPO) housed within the UN.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an international
UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a global
governing body that is an agency of the United Nations. The complaint calls on
the agency to expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without
compensation and hand them over to Ron Paul.

My immediate reaction to this was…unsettled: United Nations,
coercion, private property of the current owners….

Ron Paul has earned enough goodwill with me to last nine
lifetimes – unless he joins the Fed Board of Governors or the Board of
Directors of one of the merchants of death, I am not sure he can spend even a
few drops of the goodwill I have toward him.I do not worship him as perfect; I just respect the significance of what
he has accomplished over his lifetime.

But even with this, the action by Dr. Paul initially didn’t
sit well.

I read the complaint.It reads just like a typical legal complaint.This got me to thinking….

If I felt wronged in some manner, I would first attempt to
work out a resolution with the other party.As long as this was proceeding in a timely manner, with the other party
negotiating in good faith, I would continue in this course.Ultimately, if I felt appropriate resolution through
this approach was not likely, I would pursue recourse in the court of competent
jurisdiction.Unfortunately, in our
society, such courts are government courts – housed in some level of
government.

Certainly the end result of a court decision is force.Yet even the most libertarian of society must
develop some form of dispute resolution short of an armed duel.

To offer that Ron Paul is attempting to use government force
to achieve his ends is irrelevant, to this extent: 1) He is acting in good
faith to attempt to recover something that he believes rightly belongs to him
(his property), and 2) that the only means to do this (after good-faith attempts
with the other party have failed) is to use the court system – which by
definition is a government court system.

If the court of competent jurisdiction happens to be housed
within the UN, then where else should he go?It isn’t by Ron Paul’s doing that the federal government gave up this
jurisdiction – therefore to complain that the action is taken in the UN is
irrelevant.If he goes to a US court,
they would say it is out of their hands – go to the UN!

I have no idea about jurisdiction here, although in reading
the complaint it seems that it is through this UN-housed entity where such
complaints are adjudicated.

So here is where I am at the moment:

1)It seems Ron Paul believes he is attempting to
recover something that rightly belongs to him.On this planet, there is only one Ron Paul that matters in the public
eye.It is difficult for me to understand
how the name “Ron Paul” does not belong to the well-known “Ron Paul.”If I started a blog “Lew Rockwell Dot Org,”
it would seem appropriate that Mr. Rockwell would be justified in his attempts
to reclaim his name.

2)I can only assume that good-faith attempts were
made to negotiate and resolve this dispute.I have read some of what has become public on this.It is not enough to determine (nor, in any
case, is anyone not directly privy to all of the details of the discussions
able to determine) the extent of efforts made to resolve this privately.

3)In every society – including a libertarian
society – there is and would be some means of non-violent dispute
resolution.That we currently live in a
society where the state provides this service should not preclude a libertarian
from using these means if necessary.

4)This leads to filing the case in a court of
competent jurisdiction.It certainly
isn’t Ron Paul’s doing if that court happens to be within the UN.

I am open to understanding and considering much more on this
topic, even to views completely counter to mine - but please at least address these in the terms I have outlined. The entire issue is one that must be flushed out. If anyone can shed
light on the adjudication process if someone wants to challenge the ownership
of a domain name, this would be helpful. Where is jurisdiction?What is the process?

But from what I currently understand and what is currently
public, it seems to me that there is nothing inappropriate in Ron Paul’s
action.

Friday, February 8, 2013

This is the title of the final chapter of Fred Folvary’s
book, “Public Goods and Private Communities.”I have covered the basic aspects of his theories here and here.In this post, I will outline his summary and
offer some closing thoughts of my own regarding this idea.

As mentioned in my previous post, Foldvary offers several
case studies that demonstrate aspects of the possibility of private provision
of public services.No one example
offers a complete picture – each example offers a reality of one or a few
aspects of the theory.

One point that he mentioned in several of the case studies
was that, in order for people to implement their version of private community,
existing regulations had to be swept aside in some manner.It was the government sector’s rules that
ensured the monopoly of the government sector.

The example of Walt Disney World [WDW] in Orlando is
illustrative:

Having obtained the land, Disney
now needed self-government to fulfill his vision for WDW as a proprietary
community.On 15 November, 1965, Disney
representatives met government officials at Orlando to discuss zoning and other
laws, Disney’s commitment being contingent on reaching an agreement…. The
circuit court approved the request for a separate drainage district….

The Reedy Creek Drainage District (RCDD)
was formed in May 1966 under Chapter 298 of the Florida code…enabling WDW as
landowner to control the environment and construction…. In 1967, Florida
enacted Chapter 67-764 (House Bill No. 486) for the benefit of the Walt Disney
Corporation…. The new law…‘abrogated nearly all state laws’ concerning building
and development.

Foldvary suggests that the rules of the game must be
changed.He cites Buchanan, suggesting
that changes below the (small “c”) constitutional level (whether this consists
of electing better politicians or changing the laws) will be inadequate,
because these will be “thwarted by the incentives that lead to dysfunctional outcomes.”

Such constitutional rules include:
(1) those which prescribe the governance structure, (2) those which prescribe
the behavior of the members, and (3) those which prescribe the powers of the
organization.

Constitutional reform begins with
an awareness of the meta-constitution, the ethical framework in which the
constitution itself is created.This ethical
basis cannot itself be an agreement, since it sets the foundation for
agreements.This ethic was derived in
Chapter 5 as what Locke called a ‘law of nature’, based on the premises of
human independence and equality.Such a
fundamental change is not impossible.Historical
examples abound, including the American revolution and movements such as the
abolition of slavery and equal rights for women.

Foldvary recognizes that the ethics of the people must be
addressed if fundamental change, in the form of three amendments to a
constitution, is to be enacted.He looks
to Locke for the basis:

The first, regarding the behavior
of the citizenry, could be the codification of the Lockeian universal ethic: Any act which does not coercively harm others
shall not be restricted, any state interest notwithstanding.

The second fundamental amendment regards the power of the
state:

It would eliminate the taxation of
individuals and firms by all levels of government, eliminating the mining of
private wealth.

Foldvary goes on to describe the necessity of individual
secession as the ultimate check on a government not following the rules, moving
on to a third structural reform:

…one that would permit entry and
exit into the government business itself, underpricing the cartel.It would permit any person or organization
having a title to land to withdraw the site from any government jurisdiction
and create its own governance….an exit option helps maintain the
post-constitutional enforcement of constitutional rules.

Foldvary concludes:

The theory presented in Chapters 1
to 8 presents the proposition that territorial public goods generate rents,
and, if an organization has ownership rights to the sites on which rents arise,
the rents reveal the demand for the goods and provide the means to pay for
them.

The primary hypothesis – that incentives
for personal gain do not in general induce private agents to provide the public
goods that the people in the service domain effectively demand, because there is
no way to induce individual users to each pay for a portion of the good – has been
rejected…. Since the issue is the feasibility of private provision, the existence
of the case study communities is sufficient to reject the hypothesis of market
failure.

It seems to me that Foldvary has done a very good service
with this idea as represented in this book.He takes the best feature of the system of land value tax as proposed by
Henry George, while eliminating the worst (i.e. where land should be common property),
thereby developing it into a fully voluntary possibility, one that can be
disciplined by the market.

Ultimately, the payment by the landowner is directly tied to
that item that most directly benefits from community goods – the land.Good streets, lighting, recreational
facilities, security, etc.Several such
cooperatives can contract together for other services – broader security
issues, for example.

Foldvary’s concept ties incentive for the entity providing
the services to meet market desires at prices that offer value to the
customers.It offers the possibility for
dissatisfied customers to withdraw consent – by not paying for services,
joining a different cooperative, or moving without an exit liability and
without requiring permission.

It allows for community pressure to be used as the means to
motivate non-payers and free-riders to pay.Not force, but peer-pressure.

Folvary’s work deserves wider discussion and dissemination
within the dialogue of the free-market, libertarian community.I hope to have done my small part in this.